State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Neeraj Sharma on 26 February, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 418 / 2010
National Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, 1B, Govindpuri, Ranipur More
Haridwar through Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Neeraj Sharma S/o Sh. Chandra Mohan Sharma
R/o Gosain Gali, Bhimghora
Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Gopal Narsan, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 26/02/2016
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 199 of 2009.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent - complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar in respect of vehicle No. UK08-TA-0045 (Tata Indigo LS), which was insured with the appellant - insurance company. The said vehicle met with an accident on 29.01.2009. In the said accident, the vehicle was damaged. Therefore, the claim was lodged by the respondent - complainant, which was repudiated by the 2 insurance company on 19.05.2009 as No Claim. Thereafter, the consumer complaint was filed on 21.08.2009.
3. The consumer complaint was contested by the appellant - insurance company by filing written statement and it was pleaded that the complainant has played a fraud with the insurance company, as he had taken the benefit of No Claim Bonus from the appellant and thereafter when the said fact was verified from the previous insurer - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, it was found that the complainant had also lodged a claim with the said insurance company and, as such, the claim of the complainant was not payable by the appellant and the same was rightly repudiated.
4. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 13.10.2010 allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant - opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent - complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.
5. Sh. M.K. Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - insurance company has contended that the complainant had concealed the fact that he has received the claim in respect of the vehicle in question from the previous insurance company, i.e., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and, as such, the claim was not payable. In reply, Sh. Gopal Narsan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent - complainant, drew attention of the Commission to the letter dated 23.03.2009 issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (Paper No. 25) addressed to the appellant - insurance company, wherein it was mentioned that it is hereby declared and confirmed that the insured has not taken any claim till date, i.e., 30.12.2008. The said letter was issued in respect 3 of vehicle No. UK08-TA-0045. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that a letter dated 30.04.2009 (Paper No. 18/5 of the original record) was written by the complainant himself to the appellant - insurance company, wherein it was stated that at the time of taking the insurance policy, he has inadvertently availed the benefit of No Claim Bonus and could not inform regarding the claim earlier taken by him in respect of the vehicle in question. In reply thereto, learned counsel for respondent has disputed the said letter and stated that the complainant - respondent never wrote such type of letter to the insurance company and the letter does not bear the signatures of the complainant.
6. We have perused the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum on the ground that the insurance company can not repudiate the claim on technical ground and that since the surveyor of the insurance company has mentioned that the complainant has spent an amount of Rs. 77,854/- towards the repair of the vehicle and has recommended for payment of the said amount and hence there is no ground to deny the claim.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint in respect of vehicle No. UA08-A-8281 and has further mentioned in the impugned order that the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.01.2009, for which the claim was lodged, whereas the consumer complaint was filed in respect of vehicle No. UK08-TA-0045. The appeal has also been filed in respect of vehicle No. UA08-A-8281. From the perusal of the policy, it reveals that vehicle No. UA08-A-8281 never met with an accident. The appellant has also preferred the appeal in respect of vehicle No. UA08-A-8281.
4Therefore, on this ground alone, it is a fit case to be remanded back to the District Forum, so that the District Forum may decide the claim in respect of UK08-TA-0045 in accordance with law. The District Forum should also examine the issue whether in respect of vehicle No. UK08-TA-0045, any claim was received by the complainant from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited or not during the previous policy of the vehicle and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
8. In view of above, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 13.10.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. Since the consumer complaint pertains to the year 2009, therefore, the District Forum is directed to decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months' from the receipt of the record. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 21.03.2016. The record of the District Forum be sent back forthwith. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, be released in its favour. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K